During
much of the last two decades many articles have been written and many speeches
have been given about the need for cooperation in the field of work with the
blind. Has this cooperation not always existed, one might ask? Indeed, it has
not. There are two schools of thought among entities dealing with blindness.
Because there have been two, the need for cooperation is paramount. If organizations
and agencies in the blindness field do not cooperate, programs for the blind
suffer. But this is not simple or easy because entities in the blindness field
often mistrust each other, and the philosophical approaches are frequently very
different. Even when all parties involved have substantial goodwill for each
other, cooperation demands work. When this goodwill is absent, the harmony and
collegiality which have often been advocated are almost impossible.

Cooperation
cannot occur unless those in the field of work with the blind are willing to
meet with each other and share ideas. It requires give and take and a substantial
measure of goodwill, and cooperation implies a willingness to support one another--it
cannot be one-sided. Sometimes the perception of the organized blind is that
the insistence on cooperation from the agencies doesn't actually imply real
give and take or mutual support. Sometimes this request for cooperation appears
to mean "We want you to cooperate with us. We will cooperate with you whenever
we need you. If we think we don't need you, we will attack you whenever we feel
like it."

This
kind of cooperation is exemplified by a meeting which occurred at the National
Center for the Blind in the mid-1990's. Representatives of the American Foundation
for the Blind (AFB), the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the
Blind and Visually Impaired (AER), and the National Federation of the Blind
were discussing potential legislation. Officials from the Foundation and AER
urged that there be cooperation in approaching members of Congress. We agreed,
and we set a time to exchange ideas.

When
the meeting came to pass, we of the National Federation of the Blind began it
by presenting our plans for the next legislative season. When we had concluded
our presentation, the other representatives at the meeting got up to leave.
We objected, saying we had thought there would be an exchange of ideas. They
said that they were not prepared to tell us what they were planning to do; they
had come to learn what we were planning to do. Inasmuch as they had gained knowledge
of our plans, they saw no further point in continuing the meeting. I suppose
it need not be pointed out that no further exchanges of this kind have occurred.

During
the 1980's a relationship of mutual respect and growing cooperation began to
develop between the National Federation of the Blind and the American Foundation
for the Blind. Mr. William Gallagher, the then president of the AFB, and Dr.
Kenneth Jernigan, serving then as president of the National Federation of the
Blind, worked together. Differences of opinion continued to exist, but these
differences were often discussed in depth, and real understanding frequently
resulted.

The
effort to foster cooperation has continued, and some notable progress has been
made. However, the substantial cooperation that has been developing now appears
to be in jeopardy.

Carl
Augusto

Carl Augusto, the current
president of the AFB, accepted an invitation to appear at the 2003 convention
of the National Federation of the Blind to report on the work of the Foundation.
During the portion of the program in which he appeared, James Gashel, NFB director
of governmental affairs, asked Carl Augusto whether the Foundation had joined
with others in the blindness field to adopt a position paper with respect to
certain practices dealing with rehabilitation of the blind. The Foundation's
name is appended to the paper, which strongly indicates that the AFB adopted
the text of the document. This paper may be interpreted as a criticism of the
work and the positions of the National Federation of the Blind. It may be regarded
as an attack upon the Federation.

Even
if it is not interpreted this way, the statement was drafted and apparently
adopted without consultation with the National Federation of the Blind. Cooperation
and harmony demand interaction and communication. The statement was adopted
with no interaction, no communication, and no notice. From the point of view
of the organized blind, this statement was concocted in secret and distributed
to undermine the programs of the Federation. Such behavior is inconceivable
from an ally and is reprehensible in one who would seek to make common cause.
James Gashel asked Carl Augusto if the Foundation had adopted this paper without
consultation. Carl Augusto appeared not to know.

I
asked Carl Augusto if he would seek the information and report back to us. He
said that he would.

Shortly
after the close of the convention, Carl Augusto called me to say that he had
felt attacked at the convention. I asked him if he had discovered whether the
Foundation was a party to the statement circulated earlier bearing the Foundation's
name. Mr. Augusto responded by saying that he felt the exchange at the convention
would detrimentally affect the relationship between our organizations. I indicated
to him that, if what had been said about the Foundation were true, I thought
he was right. I waited for several weeks for the answer to my question, but
I did not hear from Carl Augusto. I decided to reiterate the question in a letter.
Here it is:

August
13, 2003

Mr. Carl AugustoPresidentAmerican Foundation
for the BlindNew York, New York

Dear
Carl:

You
accepted an invitation to speak at the convention of the National Federation
of the Blind in Louisville, Kentucky, on the 2nd of July, 2003. This invitation
was extended to you because I felt that it would be worthwhile to promote a
cordial relationship between the National Federation of the Blind and the American
Foundation for the Blind. I indicated to the audience that I thought harmonious
relations were possible and that there had been significant effort to develop
them.

Following
your presentation, questions were raised with you about the participation of
the American Foundation for the Blind in a joint statement which appeared to
be an indirect attack upon the National Federation of the Blind. You seemed
unfamiliar with the document being discussed, but you told us that you would
look into the matter.

A
few days after the convention you called me to say that you felt as if you had
been attacked at the convention. You further told me that you believed that
attacks of the kind you had undergone would jeopardize the working relationship
between the organizations we represent. I indicated to you that I would obtain
the text of the joint statement which had been the subject of questioning at
the NFB convention.

The
joint statement appears to be a document which declares that the only valid
certifying body for rehabilitation in the United States is the Academy for Certification
of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals. The joint statement appears
to declare that any program of rehabilitation which is unable or unwilling to
accept students who are learning to travel with guide dogs is in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The joint statement appears to declare
that teaching blind students using blindfolds as the primary or exclusive method
of training is not in accordance with the best practices. I enclose a copy of
the joint statement for your review.

If
this document has actually been adopted by the organizations named within it,
the statement must have been prepared, discussed, and accepted without the participation
of the National Federation of the Blind. Such a procedure would violate the
spirit of collegiality, which I had thought was part of the growing harmonious
relationship between our organizations. Furthermore, the joint statement bears
the name of the National Accreditation Council. This organization is perhaps
the least credible and most controversial in the field of work with the blind.
If the American Foundation for the Blind has linked its name with that of the
National Accreditation Council, this would be most unfortunate. The National
Accreditation Council long ago declared war upon the blind, and the organized
blind have responded by assuring those who want to know that the blind will
not accept the dictatorial, highhanded behavior of NAC.

I
have kept my promise to you in our telephone conversation. I have sought the
document which purports to bear the name of the American Foundation for the
Blind. I ask you to respond to the question we raised with you at the convention.
Does this joint statement reflect the considered opinion of the American Foundation
for the Blind? In your telephone conversation with me that occurred shortly
after our convention, you said that the future harmony and cooperation that
might exist between the National Federation of the Blind and the American Foundation
for the Blind would be affected by our behavior toward each other. I believe
that you are absolutely correct. Please let me know if the joint statement was
adopted by the Foundation and others without the courtesy of inviting the National
Federation of the Blind to express a view.

Sincerely,

Marc Maurer, PresidentNational Federation
of the Blind

The attachment to this
letter is as follows:

Joint
Statement on Critical Issues Facing Specialized Rehabilitation Services for
People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired

We
the undersigned organizations endorse the following principles:

Use of
Visual Occlusion in Orientation and Mobility Instruction

We
believe that programs providing instruction in independent travel to individuals
with functional/usable vision are most effective when they recognize the importance
of using both visual and nonvisual techniques to travel safely and efficiently.
For some individuals, blindfolding may be an effective method for teaching reliance
on the use of other senses; however, we believe the best practice is to incorporate
instruction in the use of remaining vision so that individuals will learn to
use both visual and nonvisual information simultaneously.

While
we believe that the use of visual occlusion is an appropriate instructional
technique for some individuals, it must not be mandated as a condition for the
receipt of any services. Additionally, when occlusion is to be used, it should
be provided with the prior expressed consent of the individual receiving instruction.
The professional orientation and mobility specialist, in consultation with the
consumer and when appropriate the consumer's family, should determine whether
and how to make use of visual occlusion.

Certification

We
support certification of professionals meeting the unique and individual needs
of consumers with visual impairments. To be meaningful, such certification must
require satisfaction of relevant postsecondary education, practice-based skills
acquisition, and adherence to a Code of Professional Ethics. These criteria
are designed to ensure that certified professionals possess a relevant and measurable
knowledge base, competencies, and skills to provide individually tailored services.
A certification program's adherence to this combination of criteria assures
a level of professional quality which cannot be guaranteed by minimal practice-based
criteria alone.

The
certification program of service providers in the blindness and low vision field
administered by the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education
Professionals (ACVREP) meets these criteria. In addition, ACVREP maintains full
recognition with the National Certification Commission (NCC), a nonprofit external
reviewer of certification programs. To ensure adherence to meaningful standards,
we believe that any organization that purports to certify professional service
providers should be similarly recognized by the NCC and/or other comparable
independent reviewing or accrediting bodies.

Use of
Dog Guides

The
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and laws in all fifty
states guarantee access to public accommodations and to the programs and services
of state/local government by people who are blind or visually impaired who may
use dog guides. This guarantee extends to participation in any and all education
and vocational rehabilitation programs and services. The use of a dog guide
therefore is the individual choice of a consumer, which must be honored.

Statement
Endorsed by:

American
Council of the Blind

American
Foundation for the Blind

Association
for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired

Blinded
Veteran's Association

Council
of U.S. Dog Guide Schools

National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving People With Blindness or Visual Impairment

National
Council of Private Agencies for the Blind and Visually Impaired

National
Vision Rehabilitation Cooperative

The
letter to Carl Augusto was written on August 13, 2003, more than a month after
the close of the convention of the National Federation of the Blind. I wrote
to Carl Augusto because I had not heard from him. Although he had promised to
tell us whether the Foundation had been involved in the secret negotiations
to adopt a statement upbraiding the National Federation of the Blind, he had
not provided us with the information.

The hot days of summer
faded into the fall. The breezes of September stirred the leaves on the trees,
and many of them fell, but no letter arrived from Carl Augusto. The gentle warmth
of September turned to the briskness of October. The frost appeared on the mailbox,
but the mailbox remained empty. October became November, and the pumpkins were
displayed on the front porches. Thoughts of turkeys stirred in the minds of
the people, but no communication came from Carl Augusto. Has he lost our address
or forgotten how to write? It may be that this silence is the most informative
kind of communication.